SF&F Questions: Is HARRY POTTER an epic fantasy?

The Basics

Harry Potter is the biggest-selling novel series of the past twenty years. More than 600 million copies of the seven-volume sequence have been sold and the nine movies set in the same world have grossed over $9 billion (with a tenth due for release this year). The series is a huge crossover success, attracting both young and adult readers, and its characters, terminology and storylines have entered the popular consciousness.

One question that arises occasionally is to do with the genre of the series. The field of epic fantasy has boomed in popularity in the last twenty years, driven by the success of the Lord of the Rings movies and, more recently, the Game of Thrones TV series (both based on huge-selling novel series). It is therefore interesting, if ultimately unimportant, to ask the question, is Harry Potter an epic fantasy? If not, what genre is it in?

I asked this question previously in 2011 and this generateda lot of discussion (lots of excellent points in the comments as well), but I hadn’t fully caught up with either the books or films at that point. Now that I have done so with the films, it seemed an interesting idea to revisit the question.

What is an epic fantasy?

What makes this question more problematic is that no generally-accepted definition of what an epic fantasy is seems to exist. Most people seem to respond with a variation of, “I don’t know, it’s got magic and dragons and elves in it, or something?”

The Encyclopaedia of Fantasy (1997) offered this definition by SFF uber-critic John Clute:

"An epic is a long narrative poem which tells large tales, often incorporating a mixture of legend, myth and folk history, and featuring heroes whose acts have a significance transcending their own individual happiness or woe. The classic epic tells the story of the founding or triumph of a folk or nation... Prose fiction which might be called EF include several of the central secondary world tales central to the development of fantasy over the past 100 years - e.g. much of the work of Kenneth Morris, E.R. Eddison, J.R.R. Tolkien and Stephen R. Donaldson. Any fantasy tale written to a large scale which deals with the founding or definitive and lasting defence of a land may fairly be called an EF. Unfortunately, the term has been increasingly used by publishers to describe heroic fantasies that extend over several volumes and has thus lost its usefulness."

Not tremendously helpful, so in my own blog series A History of Epic Fantasy I offer the following definition:

"An epic fantasy is a substantial work of fiction set either in a fictional realm, or a fictionalised version of the real world, in which several characters (and sometimes many dozens) are faced with transformative goals and tasks. Something inherent in the setting must be impossible or fantastic, to set it aside from being merely an alternative history or work of science fiction. There is usually an antagonist to defeat, magical items to utilise and battles to be fought on a large scale. The work is usually long or extends across multiple volumes, although short epic fantasies are not unknown."

Although not definitive, I think that works as a rough idea of the elements you might expect to see in the genre.

What is Harry Potter about?

If you’re one of the three people on Earth not familiar with the series, it may be constructive to briefly summarise the series to see how well it fulfils the tenants of epic fantasy:

Harry Potter is a fantasy series written by J.K. Rowling consisting of seven novels: Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone (1997), Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (1998), Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (1999), Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2000), Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2003), Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2005) and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (2007). An eight-film adaptation of the books (The Deathly Hallows was broken into two films) began in 2001 and concluded in 2011. A sequel stage play (Harry Potter and the Cursed Child) and two prequel movies (Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them and The Crimes of Grindelwald) have followed.

The books are set in a fantasied version of the real world, where magical creatures, wizards, witches and sorcery exist in parallel to our world, but sophisticated magic is employed to keep the existence of this world secret from the mundane one. The magic community regards the non-magic community disparagingly as “muggles” and takes little interest in them, despite their technology and numbers. Children with an aptitude for magic are taken to one of several magic schools, with apparently one school for each country or region: the UK’s school, located in Scotland, is called Hogwarts.

Eleven years before the books begin, the magical world is rocked by a conflict where one wizard, Tom Riddle, attempts to seize power and conquer the magical world (and possibly the muggle one as well). Taking the name “Voldemort” and styling himself “the Dark Lord”, nearly succeeds in his mission. During a final battle in the village of Godric’s Hollow, he successfully kills two wizards opposed to him – Lily and James Potter – and tries to kill their one-year-old son, Harry. However, Harry is able to resist the attack and Voldemort is apparently killed as a result. When the books open, Harry is being looked after by his mother’s sister Petunia and her husband Vernon, both muggles who despised Lily and James, and hate and mistreat Harry as a result. Despite their objections, Harry is recruited into Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Harry, who was hitherto unaware of the existence of the magical world, starts off on the backfoot. He is also taken aback by his fame as a result of his role in Voldemort’s apparent destruction. Potter quickly makes two very close friends, Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley, but earns the enmity of Draco Malfoy and the potions teacher, Severus Snape.

Over the course of his time at Hogwarts, it becomes clear that Voldemort was not killed, but instead reduced to a shadow or wraith-like existence. Voldemort’s followers, the Death-Eaters, successfully restore their master to a corporeal and apparently invulnerable form and Voldemort quickly launches a renewed attempted to conquer the magical community. Harry, aided by friends and allies, organises a resistance and learn Voldemort’s weakness, that to preserve his life he has split his life force between seven vessels, known as Horcruxes. Harry sets out to destroy the Horcruxes and also draw Voldemort’s forces into a decisive battle at Hogwarts.

Does Harry Potter fulfil the criteria?

At first glance, Harry Potter fulfils most of the criteria to be counted as an epic fantasy. The story is epic in scale, unfolding over seven novels (and eight long movies), the latter four of which are quite large. Although the story is episodic, at least to start with, a clear over-arcing storyline quickly emerges and comes to dominate the saga.

The story itself is also the most familiar one in epic fantasy: a Chosen One (Harry) is prophesied to stand against a Dark Lord (Voldemort). Magic is a fact of life and non-human races (elves, goblins, centaurs and giants) and creatures (dragons, giant spiders, basilisks and many others) abound. There are several key and major battles throughout the series and there are a large number of Plot Coupons (magical mcguffins or plot devices), including magical swords, a secret crown (or diadem), the Horcruxes, the Deathly Hallows and magical wands, among many others. There are also conspiracies and political intrigue, with the return of the Dark Lord being regarded with scepticism by many factions which hinders Harry’s attempts to forge an alliance to stand against Voldemort.

Several arguments mustered against Harry Potter being an epic fantasy seem unconvincing. The series is predominantly aimed at children and teenagers, but several key epic fantasy works are likewise aimed at younger readers, including J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit (and The Lord of the Rings at least starts in a similar mode before becoming more adult), C.S. Lewis’s The Chronicles of Narnia, Ursula K. Le Guin’s Earthsea series and Christopher Paolini’s Eragon saga, whilst other series seem to be deliberately calibrated so either children or adults can enjoy them, such as David Eddings’ Belgariad (recently reissued in a YA edition) and Weis & Hickman’s Dragonlance books. Being aimed at younger readers does not disqualify a work from being an epic fantasy.

More debatable is the fact that Harry Potter ostensibly takes place in our world but with a magical hidden society. Some have argued this makes the series more akin to an urban fantasy than an epic one. This seems flawed, as urban fantasies take place in urban environments: Jim Butcher’s Dresden Files features a secret magical world existing alongside our own, but the action itself takes place in the real world (most regularly in and around Chicago). The same is true for Charlaine Harris’ Sookie Stackhouse series and other works of urban fantasy. Harry Potter, by contrast, does not take place in urban environments (a few isolated moments aside) and the majority of the story takes place in fictional locations, mostly in and around Hogwarts Castle.

Furthermore, many epic fantasies do take place in remote and fictional historical periods of our world (such as Tolkien’s Middle-earth works and Robert Jordan’s The Wheel of Time), in parallel universe versions of our history (such as Kate Elliott’s Spiritwalker Trilogy and Crown of Stars series) and feature characters crossing over from our world to a fantastical one (such as Narnia, Guy Gavriel Kay’s Fionavar Tapestry and Stephen Donaldson’s Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever). It’s actually less common to encounter epic fantasy worlds with absolutely zero connections to our one.

The level of worldbuilding that Rowling has done for the series also exceeds that of many epic fantasies, with vast numbers of characters, timelines, backstories, magical rules, terms and bloodlines created and detailed.

Answer: Harry Potter fulfils most of the requirements for being an epic fantasy, and the arguments used to counter its place in the genre would also eliminate many works considered to be inarguably core to the genre. As such Harry Potter can be counted as part of the epic fantasy subgenre, as well as being a YA fantasy.

Thank you for reading The Wertzone. To help me provide better content, please consider contributing to my Patreon page and other funding methods, which will also get you exclusive content weeks before it goes live on my blogs. SF&F Questions are debuting on my Patreon feed and you can read them there before being published on the Wertzone.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

The fifth Harry Potter novel, The Order of the Phoenix, is also the longest, clocking in at over 800 pages in paperback and taking the author three times longer to write than any previous book in the series. When it came time to adapt the novel the screenwriters had to take a chainsaw to the manuscript.

Mercifully, this approach worked. Michael Goldenberg expertly focused the script on the core of the story from the novel whilst removing extraneous subplots. The loss of some of this material is a shame, particularly the removal of Ron's Quidditch storyline, but for the most part the cuts are well-judged and give us a fast-paced, action-packed film with some moments of more atmospheric reflection, courtesy of new director David Yates.

The addition of Yates adds an interesting visual texture to the film. Best-known previously for the excellent BBC mini-series State of Play, Yates darkens the visual tone of the series and introduces a much greater sense of continuity and creeping menace. The Harry Potter world makes a bit more sense as a setting in the Yates movies, and his grasp of film-making is assured and compelling. Keeping Yates around to direct the next three movies as well was a very good move. New castmembers such as Imelda Staunton as Delores Umbridge and Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix Lestrange are also outstanding, Staunton's brittle-to-the-point-of-deranged Umbridge being a particularly effective antagonist.

Where the film falters is when it includes elements from the book but can't pay them more than lip service: Nymphadora Tonks is well-played by Natalia Tena (later to appear in Game of Thrones) but she has such little to do in this or subsequent films that you wonder if the character should have just been cut altogether. The death of one major character, which was an important moment in the novels, is also kind of glossed over here.

Still, the film succeeds in being a well-paced, well-directed and compelling piece of fantasy cinema.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (****½) is another fine addition to the film series. The movie is available now in the UK (DVD, Blu-Ray) and USA (DVD, Blu-Ray) as part of the Complete Harry Potter Movie Collection.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

The Prisoner of Azkaban was a major hit movie for Warner Brothers and the Harry Potter franchise, rewarding their faith in choosing an unusual director for the project and focusing more on the bigger picture of the overall story of the series and worrying less about making each movie stand alone. However, for the fourth film in the franchise an even bigger challenge lay ahead: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was an enormous novel, more than twice the length of The Prisoner of Azkaban and almost three times the length of the first book in the series. Fitting the book into one move proved challenging.

For this film and the remaining ones in the series, producer David Heyman and writer Steve Kloves realised it would now be necessary to strip each book back to its key storyline and major moments and use simplified plot beats and storytelling to get from one moment to the next. In the process, numerous subplots and minor characters would have to be cut. This was a difficult decision, but ultimately one that allowed them to tell the story in as effective a manner as possible, and ultimately the decision was supported by writer J.K. Rowling.

With Cuaron reluctant to repeat himself, veteran and versatile director Mike Newell was brought on board. Having made films as different as Four Weddings and a Funeral, Donnie Brasco and Mona Lisa Smile, Newell was adept at fitting his vision to the tone of the material and creating reliably effective cinema. It helps that The Goblet of Fire is one of the best books in the series, Rowling opening up her world to show more of the magical society beyond Hogwarts and introducing a whole host of new characters and factions. The wizarding tournament with its sequential challenges also allows for both very effective pacing and tension-building, resulting in periodic key set-pieces throughout the movie.

The biggest success of the movie is in furthering the characterisation of our heroes. They are now more confident and competent, although the teenage angst of growing up is also present (exemplified by Ron and Harry's falling-out and Hermione's confused romantic feelings). Like The Prisoner of Azkaban before it, The Goblet of Fire succeeds in making sure that, no matter what else from the books is dropped or condensed, the core characterisation of the three leads is made paramount. This expands in this movie to include a few other significant secondary characters, like Neville Longbottom.

New actors joining the franchise in this movie include the mighty Brendan Gleeson, whose deranged performance as Mad-Eye Moody makes you want to stand up and applaud, and Ralph Fiennes who debuts as the ultimate villain, Voldemort. As expected by now, the secondary cast give excellent performances.

The script is also impressive, jettisoning as it does all repetitive and not-immediately-relevant elements and characters and focusing on the core of Harry's journey. In this manner the film's pacing and structure manages to be significantly better than The Prisoner of Azkaban.

The movie does have some significant weaknesses, however. There simply isn't enough time to fully develop the secondary cast. Whilst Cedric (a pre-Twilight Robert Pattinson) gets a few key moments and scenes to flesh him out, Viktor and Fleur (the other two tournament competitors) barely get any development at all. It's also a bit weird to cast an actor of the stature of David Tennant (even pre-Doctor Who, he was still a well-known up-and-comer) and only have him in a couple of scenes before vanishing from the film (and the franchise).

Still, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (****½) is the strongest movie in the series to date, with a strong cast and some clever writing that condenses the huge narrative down to a manageable, exciting screenplay. The movie is available now in the UK (DVD, Blu-Ray) and USA (DVD, Blu-Ray) as part of the Complete Harry Potter Movie Collection.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

After directing and releasing the first two Harry Potter movies in under three years, The Philosopher's Stone and The Chamber of Secrets, director Chris Columbus took a back seat and Warner Brothers made the bold choice of hiring Mexican director Alfonso Cuaron to helm the third movie in the series. Known for edgy, experimental and realist work, the move paid off with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban being an enormous financial hit and the first major critical success in the series.

Straight away, it's clear we're in different territory. The Prisoner of Azkaban has more handheld and realistic camera shots than the previous two movies, which were much more safe and traditional. Cuaron shows a strong affinity for effects work (which would set him in good stead for his later movie Gravity, which would be filmed almost entirely in front of green and blue screens), for story and for character. He's an excellent director of actors and elicits terrific performances from both the young child stars and the increasingly impressive galaxy of well-known supporting actors, this time around including the impeccable David Thewlis, Gary Oldman, Emma Thompson and Michael Gambon (taking over from the late, great Richard Harris as Dumbledore).

Much of the film is also shot on location, whilst the first two movies only used a few location shots and filmed almost everything else in the studio. This immediately results in a much more realistic feel to the film and grounds the film more effectively. There is also greater attention to continuity, with Hogwarts now feeling like a real place with the location of each scene and piece of the action effectively communicated.

However, the film does suffer in pacing. The Prisoner of Azkaban, as a book, is almost half again the length of the previous two books in the series with many more subplots and characters. The film makes an attempt to fit the whole book into the movie, but a lot of extraneous material had to be cut out in rewrites (such Harry's tentative interest in fellow student Cho Chang, which was moved to the following film) and then edits. This problem is increased by the fact that Chamber of Secrets (the longest film in the series) was deemed too long for a children's movie, so Prisoner is a full twenty minutes shorter with even more story cut out as a result. The result is a great story but one that feels a bit too chopped around and bitty in pacing. This odd structuring of the story also means that a key subplot, which relies on the viewer picking up on odd clues from earlier in the film, may not be as apparent as it should be.

Still, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (****) is definitely an immense improvement on the first two movies in the series and is a by turns funny, dark and exciting family adventure film, with Alfonso Cuaron's direction bringing out the best from the source material and the resources at his command. The movie is available now in the UK (DVD, Blu-Ray) and USA (DVD, Blu-Ray) as part of the Complete Harry Potter Movie Collection.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

In 2002 Chris Columbus achieved one of the more notable achievements of modern Hollywood film-making. He started filming the second Harry Potter movie, The Chamber of Secrets, a fortnight after the first movie came out. He shot the entire movie, edited it and completed visual effects in time for it to come out a year later. By modern standards, where usually an entire year is given over to post-production and visual effects alone, that's an incredible achievement.

It was also clearly one that cost the film-makers dear, and it's unsurprising that the studio switched to an eighteen-month turn-around time for the later movies in the series. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is by no means a disaster, but it is the weakest film of the series.

The biggest problem with the film is the length. At 2 hours and 40 minutes it's the longest film in the series but it has the slightest plot. The book suffers from its relative slightness as well - being more important in establishing backstory than in telling its own story - but on screen the problem is more pronounced. The film runs out of steam a good half-hour before the undercooked epic finale is reached.

There are also some structural and plausibility issues, such people really thinking Harry might be a murderer and Dumbledore being removed from the school for no really convincing reason to try to inject fake drama into the series.

Moving away from that, there are many positives in the movie, but by far the most important is that Emma Watson, Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint have all improved immensely as actors since the first film. They are more confident, more naturalistic and more relaxed. There's also been a major uptick in the quality of the effects. The Quidditch match is far better-realised than the first movie. Creatures also sit in the environment more convincingly. The film actually benefits now from being viewed as its own beast, whilst on release it was a bit more obvious that the film's effects were disappointing compared to The Lord of the Rings (most notably that Dobby, although effective, was simply nowhere near as good as Gollum as a CG creation interacting with human actors). The dialogue is also less grating, since the writers can get on with the story rather than having to unload huge amounts of exposition.

There's also some superb new additions to the cast, such as Kenneth Branagh as Gilderoy Lockhart, Jason Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy and Shirley Henderson as Moaning Myrtle, who expand the cast with charisma and skill.

The result is a bit of an odd film. In many ways a more relaxed and technically accomplished movie than its forebear, with more confident performances, but also one that is far too long for the story it is telling.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (***) is a watchable movie, but it's neither as charming as its predecessor nor as well-paced and constructed as the later films in the series. It's fun but ultimately too long, and too reliant on unconvincing plot turns. The movie is available now in the UK (DVD, Blu-Ray) and USA (DVD, Blu-Ray) as part of the Complete Harry Potter Movie Collection.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

Twenty years ago, a children's book about a young boy fated to become a wizard was published. Along with its six sequels, it went on to sell half a billion copies and created one of the biggest film franchises in history. Reviewing it is only marginally less futile than reviewing oxygen, as you'll have likely watched this film years ago or already decided to never watch it at all. But the biggest fantasy franchise of the last generation is certainly something that should be up for review and criticism.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Sorcerer's, if you're of an American persuasion) was released in 2001, adapting the first book in the series. That first novel in the Harry Potter series is also the shortest, meaning that the film had to make very little alterations or changes to fit the entire story into one movie. This is something in its favour over the later films: as the novels got longer and longer, the films had to make more and more substantial cuts and alterations to maintain a coherent story on screen.

This first movie follows the book closely. We're introduced to Harry Potter, an 11-year-old potential wizard raised by his non-magical (or "Muggle") aunt and uncle after the murder of his parents at the hands of the evil wizard Voldemort during a magical war. Potter survived, somehow deflecting the spell that Voldemort tried to use to kill him back at its wielder, leaving a strange scar on his head. Voldemort hasn't been seen since and is presumed dead. Potter is rescued from the negligent care of his aunt and uncle to attend Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, where the reputation of his parents (and his own involvement in Voldemort's ultimate defeat) precedes him. At the school Harry makes friends with classmates Hermione and Ron and ultimately gets drawn into a disturbing series of events culminating in a showdown with a powerful magical foe.

The structure of the story is an extremely strong one. In the original novel Rowling set up Harry's world with skill and economy, establishing backstory, motivations and carrying out a fair bit of worldbuilding whilst also getting across a fairly intricate story, all in a very limited page count. The film does the same, with scriptwriter Steve Kloves and director Chris Columbus letting the story unfold with verve and economy. Columbus, a rather hit-and-miss director in his other work, knows when to let the story breathe and the camera linger on a magical moment and when he needs to get on with business and maybe cut some minor ancillary material from the book to accomplish that. Major set pieces from the book, like the Quidditch match, are fast-paced and exciting and the encounters with the shadowy figure in the forest and the final confrontation are effectively creepy. The highlight might be the life-sized wizard chess match, which is surprisingly brutal.

In terms of atmosphere and tone, Kloves and Columbus do mostly good work. In terms of acting and dialogue, the film is a bit less successful. Exposition is the order of the day and much of the dialogue, especially in the first half of the movie, tends to the clunky. The movie breaks the "show, don't tell" rule a few times, although it is able to deploy flashbacks to spice things up a bit. The adult actors also seem to start off struggling with their dry dialogue, with the notable exception of Alan Rickman who just commits 100% from his first appearance on screen, before getting to grips more with it later on.

Where the film lives and dies is on the performance of the three leads. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint were all very young and inexperienced, and certainly give rough and unpolished performances. But they also have a huge amount of energy for their roles, making up in raw enthusiasm what they lack in experience at this stage.

The film is sixteen years old, so the CGI and effects have definitely dated, in some cases (particularly the troll, centaur and some of the actor replacement in the Quidditch match) quite badly. But for the most part it holds up well and the sets and overall production value remain impressive.

The biggest success of the film is that the film-makers recognise that the novels work because Rowling combined childhood whimsy with some very well-constructed worldbuilding and brief-but-effective moments of terror and action. This is a children's story, but one with some character and story depth to it.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (***½) is at times a rough movie with clunky dialogue and stilted performances, not to mention some cliched British story tropes (like the elaborate private boarding school). But once it relaxes and gets underway, the story becomes more enjoyable and the performances more nuanced. A long way from being a perfect movie, it's certainly an entertaining one that opens the series very well. The movie is available now in the UK (DVD, Blu-Ray) and USA (DVD, Blu-Ray) as part of the Complete Harry Potter Movie Collection.

RIP John Hurt

Acclaimed British actor John Hurt has sadly passed away at the age of 77.

John Hurt had many, many impressive and famous roles, of genre interest and not, in a career spanning six decades. He first rose to note in the role of Richard Rich in A Man For All Seasons (1966), followed by playing Quentin Crisp in The Naked Civil Servant (1975), the Emperor Caligula in the BBC adaptation of I, Claudius (1976) and John Merrick in The Elephant Man (1980), the film that brought himself and director David Lynch international fame.

Just before that he played the role of Kane in Ridley Scott's Alien (1979), gaining the honour of being the first-ever victim of the alien monstrosity. Arguably, this is the single most memorable screen death scene in the history of cinema. In Mel Brooks's Spaceballs (1987) he reprised the role, with the killer line "Oh no! Not again!"

He also gained acclaim for his role as Winston Smith in Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984) and as a voice actor, playing Hazel in Watership Down (1978) and Aragorn, son of Arathorn, in Ralph Bakshi's animated version of The Lord of the Rings (1978). He also portrayed the voice of the Great Dragon in the BBC TV series Merlin from 2008 to 2012, and provided the opening narration for every episode. He also had a memorable turn in the Jim Henson series The Storyteller (1988) as the titular character.

A lengthy career on stage, television and in film followed, with him gaining a whole new fanbase when he played the role of Mr. Ollivander in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001) and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part II (2011). Additional roles followed in Hellboy (2004), V For Vendetta (2006) and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008).

In 2013 John Hurt achieved an impressive distinction when he was cast in Doctor Who. He portrayed the "War Doctor", a hitherto unknown incarnation of the Doctor that existed between the Eighth and Ninth incarnations, revealed as part of the show's 50th anniversary celebrations. He has since reprised the role for three audio plays, with a fourth due for release next month. In doing so he became the twelfth actor to portray the role on television, and sadly now the fourth television actor to play the role to pass away.

John Hurt was one of Britain's very finest actors, noted for his varied, nuanced performances and his equal capability with drama, tragedy and comedy. He will be very much missed.

Warner Brothers release new trailer for FANTASTIC BEASTS AND WHERE TO FIND THEM

Warner Brothers have unveiled their final full trailer for Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, the first in a prequel trilogy to the Harry Potter series.

Written by J.K. Rowling and directed by regular Potter director David Yates, the film will be released on 18 November.

J.K. Rowling announces new HARRY POTTER book! (kind of)

J.K. Rowling has announced that her forthcoming Harry Potter stage play, Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, will be published as a scriptbook. Co-written with Jack Thorne and John Tiffany, the book will be released in the summer shortly after the play debuts in London on 30 July.

The play - and the book - are being billed as the eighth part of the Harry Potter saga, picking up nineteen years after the events in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. The story begins shortly after the epilogue to Deathly Hallows, where the now-adult Harry and his youngest son Albus Severus Potter are struggling with the legacy of Harry's previous adventures.

This year will also see the release of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, the first of three films serving as a prequel to the Harry Potter saga. Starring Eddie Redmayne, the film is set in the United States in 1926 and explores what happens when Newt Scamander (Redmayne) inadvertently releases a group of magical creatures into New York City, straining relations between the wizarding community and the No-Maj (the American term for "Muggle") majority. The film is due for release on 18 November.

RIP Alan Rickman

The world of theatre, television and film lost one of its most respected figures today. Actor Alan Rickman has passed away from cancer at the age of 69, the same age of David Bowie who passed away on Sunday.

Alan Rickman and Juliet Stevenson in Truly, Madly, Deeply (1991)

Rickman began his career in the early 1970s in theatre, initially behind the scenes but then establishing a good reputation as a performer. He moved into television in the early 1980s, playing Obadiah Slope in The Barchester Chronicles, based on Anthony Trollope's novels. Rickman's first big acting breakthrough came in Christopher Hampton's version of Les Liaisons Dangereuses in 1985. He played the male lead, the Vicomte de Valmont, and was nominated for a Tony Award when the production moved to Broadway in 1987. This move also won the attention of some American casting directors and increased his profile in the UK.

In 1987 TV scriptwriters and producers Rob Grant and Doug Naylor began casting their SF comedy series Red Dwarf and wanted Rickman for the role of Dave Lister (having cast Alfred Molina as Arnold Rimmer, but he had issues with the character and soon departed). Rickman instead chose to investigate roles in Hollywood. Two days after arriving in Los Angeles, he was cast in the role of Hans Gruber in John McTiernan's action movie Die Hard. Released the following year, Rickman's performance was highly praised for bringing greater depth and complexity to the villain than was normal in Hollywood movies. In particular, he'd so impressed McTiernan with his American accent that a subplot where Gruber posed as a hostage to win the trust of hero John McClane (Bruce Willis) was added.

Rickman soon won a supporting role in the movie The January Man, but he achieved a second major career breakthrough in 1991. In the UK he appeared in the TV movie Truly, Madly, Deeply, playing the role of a ghost who is reunited with his former lover (played by Juliet Stevenson). The film - similar to the contemporary American movie Ghost but better - was hugely successful, boosting the careers of both Rickman and Stevenson and the director, Anthony Minghella, who went on to make The English Patient, The Talented Mr. Ripley and Cold Mountain before dying (also before his time) in 2011. Truly, Madly, Deeply was important in showing Rickman playing the role of a sensitive romantic lead, very different to the villainous roles he was becoming known for in Hollywood. The following year he also won plaudits for a supporting role in the film Close My Eyes, which launched the careers of Clive Owen and Saskia Reeves.

However, this image was cemented the same year when he appeared as the Sheriff of Nottingham in the Kevin Costner vehicle Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. Rickman won praise for his charismatic, vicious performance and was widely credited with stealing the spotlight away from Kevin Costner (something Costner was allegedly aware of on set).

Rickman continued to appear on stage, in film and (more occasionally) on television. Throughout the 1990s he was constantly the front-runner among SF fans to be the new Doctor Who, should the show ever return from its lengthy hiatus (which eventually lasted from 1990 to 2005, barring a single TV movie). He appeared in Sense and Sensibility (1995), which helped launch the career of Kate Winslet and cemented the reputations of Emma Thompson and Ang Lee. He played the title role in Rasputin: Dark Servant of Destiny (1996) for HBO, and played the historical character of Eamon de Valera in the Liam Neeson film Michael Collins the same year.

In 1999 Rickman played two of the three roles of greatest interest to SFF fans. He played the Metatron, the Voice of God, in Kevin Smith's religious satire Dogma, portraying him as a libertine who enjoys a drink. The same year he played struggling actor Alexander Dane, better known as Dr. Lazarus, on the Star Trek-spoofing Galaxy Quest. Modelled on Leonard Nimoy's Mr. Spock (with a few original elements thrown in), Rickman's brilliant, hilarious performance was heavily lauded by critics and SF fans alike.

In 2001 Rickman took on the role of Severus Snape in the movie adaptation of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone by J.K. Rowling. According to Rowling, Rickman had been her first choice for the role (although the production team had previously offered the role to Tim Roth, who had turned them down). Rickman, a big fan of the novels, soon became friends with Rowling and Rowling revealed some of Snape's biggest secrets to Rickman to help his performance, years before readers would discover them in the novels. His role in Harry Potter won him immense praise and a multitude of new, young fans. The fact that Rickman approached the role with seriousness and respect - penning J.K. Rowling a public fan letter when the films were completed - also went over well with the fans.

Alan Rickman was a versatile and impressive performer, equally comfortable in Shakespeare, urban dramas, historical sagas, science fiction epics and children's fantasy movies. He was guarded, rarely giving interviews and apparently uncomfortable talking about his process and approach to the craft, but he was also good-humoured and respectful. He was certainly one of the leading lights of his generation of actors, and he was taken far, far too soon.

A History of Epic Fantasy - Part 25

In 1993 Joanne Rowling was a 28-year-old single mother, living in Edinburgh after leaving a failed marriage in Portugal. She arrived in Scotland with three completed chapters of a speculative novel about a child who discovers he is destined to become a wizard. She completed the book two years later, writing in various cafes around the city after walking her young daughter around so she would get tired and fall asleep. In 1996 the book was bought by Bloomsbury and it was published in June 1997. Within a few months it had won several major children's awards, attracting the attention of the prestigious Scholastic Books in the United States. They published it in late 1998, where it became a near-instant smash success.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (aka Sorcerer's Stone, slightly bafflingly, in the United States) began a series that would extend to seven novels, published between 1997 and 2007. As of the end of 2015, these books have sold just under 500 million - that's half a billion - copies. The book would also spawn no less than eleven films: eight based directly on the books and a planned three-film prequel series set seventy years earlier. This would become the second-highest-grossing movie franchise in history by itself. Finally, there was the impact on book publishing. The Harry Potter franchise almost single-handedly created the modern (and massively lucrative) young adult market, popularising the idea of books for kids that adults could also enjoy. It also helped restore the flagging notion of reading for an entire generation of children.

But is it really an epic fantasy?

That question has been asked many times before and has proven slightly controversial. The more obvious answer may be no: the books are set in the "real" world, with some of the action taking place in real locations such as London. Much of the story is set in and around a single location, Hogwarts, whilst epic fantasy is often based around a long journey or series of journeys across a fantastical landscape. Epic fantasy also usually features a large and diverse number of nonhuman races, whilst Harry Potter only has a small number of them, and all of the primary protagonists are human. Epic fantasy also relies on characters with diverse skillsets, whilst in Potter pretty much everyone of note is a wizard.

But there are strong arguments to the counter. The books may touch on the real world but most of the action takes place in original, fantastical locations such as Hogwarts. Also, the books make much of the idea of the world being similar to ours, but one where magic is real (if mostly secret) and the impact that has on government and society, making it arguably an alt-history. And many epic fantasies are alt-histories of the real world, from the tangentially so (Middle-earth, The Wheel of Time) to the more explicitly so (Shannara, Kate Elliott's Crown of Stars series). There is a lot of magic, a stalwart feature of epic fantasy, and the series revolves around the "Chosen One" and his destiny. There is a band of heroes brought together by chance and solidified by friendship and shared dangers, there is a powerful wizardly mentor and there is very much a Dark Lord, whose impending return and raising of an army of evil sycophants looms over the series as its primary threat. The main character starts off clueless and learns how to develop his powers as the series continues. There's also the sheer (and growing) size of the volumes as they continue, with the early, slim volumes being massively outsized by the brick-thick concluding books.

In real terms, it's semantics and not really hugely important apart from the crossover appeal: many Harry Potter fans have moved on to becoming fans of other genres. The Belgariad by David Eddings was repackaged and re-marketed as a YA series. Lightly-edited YA editions of the first two Wheel of Time novels were issued (split into four shorter books) to try to entice kids into the longer, adult series. Contemporary YA authors were also pushed hard, resulting in impressive booms in popularity for the like of Rick Riordan and Philip Pullman. Some authors also rode the crest of the wave by aiming for a YA audience but telling other kinds of stories with a wide appeal. The most successful of these were Stephanie Meyer, whose 2005-08 Twilight series (aimed at a slightly older audience than Potter) did for vampires and (albeit questionable) romance what Potter did for wizards and school life; and Suzanne Collins, whose Hunger Games trilogy (2008-10) channelled science fiction and political oppression instead. Both of the latter series have sold over 100 million copies apiece.

The impact of all of this on fantasy as a genre was immense. Combined with the simultaneous release of the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy by Peter Jackson, Harry Potter helped repopularise the genre for a whole new generation, with even very adult authors benefitting as the parents also moved on to finding other works. Lev Grossman's Magicians trilogy was positioned as a "Harry Potter for adults", as was Patrick Rothfuss's Kingkiller Chronicle, among many others.

So with Harry Potter, fantasy became not just a success but a global phenomenan, achieving a level of popular success which was remarkable and enduring. But some new fantasy authors emerging in the late 1990s did not chase that dream of mass success through easily accessible stories. One, in particular, decided to make the entry bar for his series rather high and daunting and made few concessions for casual readers. His ten-volume fantasy series, executed in just twelve years, was a startling success at a time when other, more famous authors were getting bogged down in their series. This, then, was the story of the Fallen.

Is HARRY POTTER epic fantasy?

An interesting question that I posed on Twitter last night, to some interesting answers. Does the Harry Potter series count as epic fantasy?


Points for:
The series features the struggle between a band of plucky heroes against a Dark Lord and his minions. The Dark Lord has previously menaced the world in a prior incarnation and been defeated, but is now returning, a fact initially greeted with scepticism in some quarters.

The central hero is a chosen one whose destiny is to defeat the Dark Lord, as agreed upon by pretty much everyone (even the Dark Lord and his minions, who make the hero's termination a priority).

The series features conspiracies, political intrigue and notable magical battles.

The series is set in a well-thought-out, internally consistent secondary world with its own rules, including a magic system.

The series incorporates numerous 'standard' fantasy creatures and monsters, including centaurs, dragons and griffins.


Points against:
The setting may be a secondary world, but it's closely based on the real world, meaning the author hasn't had to do that much worldbuilding.

The effects of the story are epic and wide in scope, but the majority of the story is geographically limited to one single location (Hogwarts and the surrounding region) for most of the story (six of the seven books).

A lack of guys with swords, hidden crowns or claims to a throne. Also, whilst there are significantly large magical battles, there aren't any massive clashes of sword-wielding dudes.

The lack of any maps in the books.


Conclusion:
It's a difficult call (and ultimately a pointless display of semantics) but I think the series veers close to the standard definitions of epic fantasy. Some replies suggested it should be counted as urban fantasy, but for the most part the story doesn't take place in a traditional urban environment. There's also the question of if a fantasy can be simultaneously epic and urban rather than being limited to one definition.

Thoughts?